August 29, 2004

HERE'S HOW THEY SPEND SEPTEMBER:

War over war crimes: A new ad takes Kerry to task over what he said in 1971, but the truth is complicated (Dan Gilgoff, 9/06/04, US News)

Until a few weeks ago, John Brenner, department commander for Pennsylvania's Veterans of Foreign Wars, was leaning toward George W. Bush. Then he caught wind of a TV ad launched by an anti-John Kerry group accusing the Democratic candidate of lying to get medals in the Vietnam War. "I don't want to see them question anybody's record," says Brenner, 61, a Vietnam vet. "Especially if they got a Purple Heart and . . . shrapnel in their leg." But last week, Brenner saw a second ad from the anti-Kerry outfit--Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--which blasted Kerry for telling a Senate committee in 1971 that U.S. forces had committed atrocities in Vietnam. This time, Brenner's anger turned to Kerry and other antiwar protesters, who, he says, prolonged Vietnam and made it "hard on troops that were still over there."

By late last week, Kerry was scrambling to rebut the first ad, producing vets to corroborate his version of events. But the second ad could prove more troublesome since it shows Kerry more broadly raising questions about the actions of all Vietnam vets. Its use of Kerry's own words casts his testimony in black and white; in reality, it was anything but.

The second ad--which, like the first spot, ran in just three states but was replayed in the national media--features testimonials from former prisoners of war set against footage of Kerry before the Senate committee, relating tales of U.S. soldiers who "cut off limbs . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." The testimony "hurt me more than any physical wounds," says one POW in the ad. The Kerry camp and some independent observers say the commercial misrepresents Kerry's '71 testimony by implying that he accused all U.S. troops of committing war crimes.


It's hard to see any way the Senator can defuse the testimony, but arguing that he didn't mean what he said will be a disaster. In order to make the argument they have to call further attention to the testimony and those candidacy-killing attacks on America and his fellow soldiers.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 29, 2004 11:42 PM
Comments

Besides the fact that CFR is an utter abomination, this election should demonstrate to everyone that it's a complete farce, since the internet is the future. How are you going to stop attack ads from being posted and distributed on web sites and via e-mail?

Posted by: brian at August 29, 2004 11:48 PM

Can't wait to see how the American Legion greets the confessed war criminal on Wednesday.

Posted by: Melissa at August 29, 2004 11:50 PM

He'll pretty much have to do a full confession in front of the Legion and ask for foregiveness to make this one go away. I would think that's what his advisors would be pleading for him to do on Wednesday, if for no other reason that to try and derail some of Bush's convention momentm, but given the senator's mighty ego, it's hard to see him being able to do that with out throwing at least a few "but I was right about Vietnam" lines in there, just as he did with Russert on Meet the Press back in the spring.

Doing that will negate the entire thrust of the speech, except for those in the media who will proclaim it a "heart-wrenching confession" and say it's now time for the swift boat vets to go crawl back under the rock they came from.

Posted by: John at August 30, 2004 12:01 AM

John:

You hear rumors that they have considered having him apologize to vets for his anti-war statements, but then the GOP just hammers him on the Contras, the nuclear freeze, Grenada, Iraq I, etc. Senator, you say you were duped by one communist regime, what about these others?

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2004 12:09 AM

John:

I doubt that a guy who can't admit personal fault for tripping on a snowboard slope can bring himself to accept blame for his 1971 testimony.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at August 30, 2004 12:38 AM

If you go read the senate testimony its like everything else Treebeard says, its made out of Mercury. It looks like a metal but its liquid and has no shape.

I am sure it is quite deliberate on his part. He never says anything he might have to take responsibility for.

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, . . .

"It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

"They told the stories at times they had personally . . ."

There you have it allusion not witness. No testimony. No resposibility. "I would like to tell you . . . but its impossible." "They told stories" A thick layer of bu11$h;t to cover his tracks. Appologize to the American Legion? What for? He didn't say anything. Go back and read the transcript. The Swift Vets have ripped his tesitimony out of context. He is being smeared.

This is going to be very interesting.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at August 30, 2004 12:51 AM

OJ --
I think the situation is getting pretty close to the point where the Kerry people will take their chance in the shooting gallery of scrutinizing his Senate record, if that's what it takes to get out of the swift boat vets' Vietnam minefield. But I dobut it will happen until after the post-convention poll numbers come in, since they'll want to see if Bush gets the same type of non-bounce their candidate did last month.

Fred --

Basically, Kerry in all likelihood does have some regrets about the speech -- not about its content and certainly not about his stand on the war, but more in the line of "If I knew than what I know now I would have toned down my war crimes comments in front of the television cameras and saved that for the anti-war rallies and VVAW meetings, so no one could play those videos back today." That's the point he seemed to be making when he offered up his explanation to Russert after he made Kerry comment on his Senate testimony.

I think right now, Kerry probably wants his staff and speechwriters to come up with a more polished version of the "my hair looks darker" explanation he gave on Meet the Press, one that can convince the veterans he's sorry for his actions while at the same time retaining plausable deniability that he's repudiated his actions. Of course, for many in the media, he could go up there Wednesday and tell the Legion members to "eat my shorts" and they'd say "Well, that sounds like a contrite apology to me. Let's move on to focusing on health care and credit card debt." But the Legion and other vets are going to want to hear something more than another attempt to parce words in an apology. Kerry's writers will derserve some kind of award if they can actually pull this one off.

Posted by: John at August 30, 2004 1:51 AM

Kerry did the smearing, questioned the honor of our military and had an active hand in it.

Then there's the let's kill some senators to get their attention meetings.

Same MO - knew about this stuff, never told anyone to stop it. And at least 1 of those guys is working in his FLA campaign.

Hey, what's a little sedition between friends? OK, the Revolution didn't happen just like the way we wanted it, but still....

Posted by: Sandy P at August 30, 2004 2:54 AM

There is the beginning of explicit recognition that we are in a Moral Superiority War (not a culture war). All intellectually honest folk SHOULD be enraged at the press, my point #2 below.

http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093544824#329796

The 3 big issues the Kerry Lie brings up (Lies):
1) Kerry’s Lie mean he is unfit to be commander in chief; he will be sunk by the Swifties.

2) The press & academia has been enabling Kerry for years, covering up his lies. The PC beliefs of most press reporters, and their censorship of discussion & cover up of the facts, has been enabling Kerry’s Lie, and most in the press are still trying to. Bush-hate by the press is no excuse for a press cover-up.

3) Kerry’s Lie helped create Political Correctness: “ending the Vietnam war, now” as the morally superior position. This is the Kerry Lie sand that PC is built on, and it is now developing cracks.

What is worth fighting for, what is worth fighting against?
The evil commies deserved to be fought against;
Saddam deserved to be fought against.

To fight means to kill, die, and even kill some innocents. The real alternative is surrender.

The desire to avoid killing innocents is good. That's what war crimes is all about. The evil guys don't have war crimes trials. If Christian based Civilization, Moral Civ, allows war trials to stop us from winning -- we will lose due to our morals.

Such morals are wrong.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 30, 2004 8:20 AM

I'm with Sandy. Kansas City is just sitting out there waiting for October. What can he possibly do to avert disaster when people learn about Kansas City?

Posted by: David Cohen at August 30, 2004 9:08 AM

SBVT have a new, 3rd, ad out, so I've been told. Anyone see it?

Posted by: genecis at August 30, 2004 11:41 AM

You've probably seen or heard of this before but it's waiting in the pipeline also:

Stolen Honor

Posted by: MB at August 30, 2004 11:48 AM

Robert S. -

Kerry's words may be reflective of what people "told" him, but he repeated them, down to the last gruesome detail. And the generalization was his. Plus, there is the matter of Kerry putting his arm around the shoulders of a 'witness' to these atrocities, but the man was later shown to have never been in Vietnam (I can't remember his name). Kerry has never even acknowledged that error.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 30, 2004 11:33 PM
« BIGGER FISH TO FRY: | Main | GIVEN WHAT THEY'VE THROWN AT HIM, WHAT COULD BE UNFAIR?: »